Gobbledygook or Newspeak in Modern Workplaces

From time to time I write about the modern workplace; the well will never run dry when it comes to finding ideas to write about when it comes to such workplaces. I am especially interested in public sector workplaces, since they seem to embody (or aim to embody by design) the worst business philosophies and ideas that crawl out from under the slimy rocks where they’ve sprouted. Modern workplaces in Norway and elsewhere often adopt such philosophies and ideas uncritically and put them into operation without much discussion or rational consideration. I’ve written about them before, e.g. New Public Management, which is (fortunately for us) on its way out after its decade of tyranny. Ask most employees if they’ve been comfortable in their workplaces that uncritically adopted this philosophy, and their answers will be a chorus of No’s. 

The uncritical adoption of bad business philosophies into modern public sector workplaces goes hand in hand with the language of gobbledygook to support and defend them. If company leaders don’t want their employees to know what it is they are being subjected to, then gobbledygook is the language they use. Let’s call it Newspeak for modern workplaces (with apologies to George Orwell). It can be defined as a language that makes no sense whatsoever, either to its users or to its unfortunate listeners. Its aim is to create a smokescreen so that employees become confused or left in the dark about what is really going on. If you have ever been the recipient of emails that make no sense whatsoever, if you’ve asked a question and gotten a ‘non-answer’ that passes for an answer, then you have experienced gobbledygook. If you attempt to make sense of the enormous bureaucratic system around you, e.g. how to deal with the billing department, you will be met with a wall of people, all of whom are cc-ing each other in the myriad of emails sent back and forth to answer one tiny question—how do I bill so-and-so for the service performed for them. One tiny question is ‘non-answered’ by at least six or more people, none of whom can or will take responsibility for providing a substantive answer. This is cowardice by design, inbuilt into a system that is itself designed to dilute out responsibility so that no one can be taken for any wrongdoing that could arise down the road. How would anyone be able to track the countless email paths, conversations, etc. that are attached to one miniscule billing situation?

In this vein, it was interesting to read the remarks of a Norwegian leader (of a public sector workplace that deals out money to researchers) concerning his organization’s philosophy, translated here from Norwegian:

When the sectoral principle so strongly influences Norwegian research funding, it is all the more important that XXX has a real opportunity to create synergies of funds given with different logics, then we can create win-win situations where we can deliver both on goal A and Goal B for the same money.

For God’s sake, what does this mean? And it’s not the translation; it was just as difficult to understand the meaning in Norwegian. This is how we are ‘talked to’ on a daily basis, from leader’s commentaries to emails that makes no sense or that provide no answers whatsoever. This is what we face at every turn. Meaningless pronouncements with bloated language that create a world of nonsense. Nonsense—literally, non-sense. Lewis Carroll would be proud (the author of Alice in Wonderland for those of you who wonder, whose Alice fell down the rabbit hole into a world that made no sense). It would be alarming if it wasn’t comical. It is no longer comical in my opinion. This is how many public sector workplaces operate on a daily basis. I pity those employees who prize speaking clearly and getting the job done as their goals. It is nearly impossible to cut through the jungle of gobbledygook on the way toward those goals. 

Questions I have for those who appoint leaders

• Why is it that so many current leaders seem to have risen to the level of their incompetence?
• Why are cowardice, silence in the face of tangible problems, and lack of honesty rewarded with appointments to key leadership positions?
• Why are employees who tell the truth, give feedback, and inform about potential problems often pushed to the side, ignored or frozen out of the leadership pack?
• Why is it necessary to resort to embarrassing lazy incompetent leaders in front of others in order to get them to do their jobs and to take responsibility?
• Why is it necessary in 2017 to have to explain to leadership that infrastructure is important? That without a well-functioning IT infrastructure, you may as well work at home where the IT infrastructure is optimal (of course it is—you cannot keep up in society without updating your computers, software, phones, TVs). That without an annual stipend from one’s workplace to purchase consumables, little will get done because there is no money to buy necessary items.
• Why is it necessary in 2017 to have to explain to research leadership that technical positions (research assistants) are alpha and omega in terms of getting things done in the lab? Why isn’t this a given, that a research group has automatic access to a full-time permanently-employed technician? Does leadership really think that senior research personnel are going to do all the lab work themselves, do all the procedures required for research projects, summarize all the data, perform statistical analyses, write articles, write grants, review others’ articles for journals (for free), review grants for national and international funding agencies (often for free or for a nominal payment), attend a plethora of (mostly pointless) meetings, act as mentors for PhD and Masters students, teach junior personnel, hold lectures, travel to conferences, etc.? Excuse me for saying so, but if they think this, they are just plain stupid. I have a colleague (over fifty years old) who told me that some of her worst work weeks have involved attending eighteen hours’ worth of meetings (that works out to almost 2.5 days a week devoted to meetings). It stands to reason that she will not have any time whatsoever to do routine work or lab work. 
• Why is it considered ok for leadership to not inform employees about important matters, but not ok if employees ignore the regulations stating that they must file periodic progress reports and account for every penny they spend?
• How did it get to the point where a research career can end literally overnight when funding dries up, and more to the point, who thinks this is a good system or a good approach? Many of those careers belong to highly-competent and efficient scientists who just don’t happen to be doing trendy research. 
• How can one honestly encourage young people to stay in academic research when the prospect of them attaining a permanent research job/steady funding/tenure is slim to none? Is it ok to essentially lie to them, to tell them that it will work out for them (it won’t in most cases)? 
• And finally: why do we older scientists even entertain the possibility that we have a snowball's chance in hell of getting research funding? Of writing a fundable grant? If I have learned anything these past five years, it’s that even though I managed to write good grant applications that got me external funding to work as a post-doc and junior scientist during a ten-year period from 1999-2008, that’s not good enough anymore. And it will never be good enough. The past does not count. Realism is what counts. Luckily I have a permanent staff scientist position so I cannot be fired because I am older, but there is no funding for consumables. It's a strange situation to be in. But I now focus on other things that give me satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment. None of them have to do with my career. 

Sexism and misogyny are alive and well

Don’t ever for one minute get sucked into a state of false belief that sexism, misogyny, and sexual harassment are things of the past, and that women have won all the battles that they need to win. In fact, the battle is just beginning. After getting a glimpse of Trump’s America, I think we’ve been set back by about fifty years. So we need to begin again. We need to raise boys and girls to have respect for each other. We need to remind young adults that NO means NO when it comes to sexual activity, and that no one should ever feel pressured to have sex just to please another person. Male chauvinist pigs like Trump need to go back to the school of hard knocks to get re-educated. It’s not ok to sexually objectify your daughter, your wife, other women, etc. In fact, it’s not just creepy, it’s ethically wrong and illegal if you step over any line in that regard, even if you are married in most civilized societies. Since he seems to have a hard time keeping his pants zipped, it’s no wonder he can’t keep his mouth zipped. I guess there are women stupid enough to fall for his tricks. That’s what always surprises me, the women who come out in support of this dinosaur. Men like him are nearing extinction in my book. They’ve had way too much power and they’ve misused it when it comes to women. I don’t know if women will be any better in the same positions of power, but it sure as hell might be nice to find out. And we will if Hillary gets elected.

You might also think that dinosaurs like these are only an American problem. WRONG again. Norwegian academia has and has had its share of these dinosaurs throughout the past twenty years. Men who comment inappropriately on your looks, men who step over the line physically and verbally at Christmas parties when they’ve had too much to drink, an institute leader (deceased) who saw nothing wrong with patting the rear end of a visiting woman scientist from Brazil. The same institute leader who used to like to corner non-Norwegian women in the elevator to ask them if they knew the difference between ‘fytte’ (used in connection with curse words) and ‘fitte’ (pussy) because if you are not Norwegian, those words often sound alike and you can make a fool of yourself if you pronounce them the wrong way. Another male scientist who regaled his female colleagues with jokes about ‘bushes’, again in the elevator where you couldn’t just escape immediately. The list of sexist, odd and questionable behavior is endless. These are men who enjoyed making women feel uncomfortable so that they could joke about it afterward. These are men like Trump, with a lot of power and no respect for women. Because it's really simple in my book--if you respect women, you don't behave this way. These are men who consistently ignore women in favor of men when it comes time for choosing new leaders or promoting from within, even when those men are clearly less qualified compared to the available women. Men who tell women who get angry about the unfairness and injustice of these types of behaviors that they are ‘unbalanced or psychologically unstable’, or that ‘perhaps they should get some professional help’. Men who joke that these women who get angry just need to get laid. And the women who joke like this about other women are just plain traitors to their own gender. Men have had the power now for eons and eons, and it’s time women took the reins. I don’t know how long that’s going to take, but we’re not going to get there if feminism is defined solely by women who take off their clothes in the name of emancipation (from what or who?), so that they can appear in porno rags and online videos and define these actions as feminist. It might be one definition of modern feminism, but it’s not the major one. They get paid a lot of money for it, however. Perhaps that’s how they think they will gain respect. They will gain money and power, yes, but not necessarily respect. That’s not a given. But perhaps for them, it's enough. I don't know and frankly, I don't care. It's not my definition of feminism and it does not help most average working women to fight the daily battles that they fight in their workplaces.

Oddly enough, if you look at many of the classic films from the 1940s and 1950s, there are roles written for women that are worthy of respect. The female characters are strong, opinionated (think Katharine Hepburn's character in the comedy Adam’s Rib), and they sometimes suffer for their independent ways and strong wills. But they are women to look up to. Many of them work, they are professional, they speak and dress well, and they stand up to and stand their ground with the men in their lives. I can relate to the women's roles in these films, in a way that I cannot relate to many of the modern roles written for women now. How can that be? I am not sure what happened, but respect for women has taken a real nose-dive recently. We need to figure out why and how to fix that. And I think we should start by emphasizing that both men and women have a lot to gain by treating each other with respect, in the workplace and outside of it.

New ventures and new roads

It is often said that ‘truth is stranger than fiction’, and the events of the past seven months in my life can truly attest to that. I will not go into details except to say that much of what has transpired is connected to my brother’s untimely death in February. I have decided to turn reality into fiction and see where that takes me. My premise is that it is better to write it down than to hold onto the swirling and sometimes negative emotions that will only burden my heart and soul for the rest of my life. So I am embarking on yet another literary venture. My friends who know me, know what has transpired, and I am sure that they will support this endeavor rather than the (seemingly insurmountable) alternatives that will only cause more problems.

I continue to write this blog and to share my poetry and photography with you, as well as my reflections about modern workplaces and workplace behavior. For some of my readers, it may seem that I cannot decide on one focused theme for the blog. That may be so. This is not a fashion blog, or a movie blog, a science blog or even a workplace blog; it is a daily life blog. I share my life as I experience it, a New Yorker in a foreign culture. Norwegian culture (ways of looking at and doing things in personal and work arenas) remains somewhat foreign to me even after twenty-five years of living and working here. Norway has changed a lot in that time, as has the USA. Workplaces are now global arenas that have their unwritten rules based on the culture in which they do business, but are also the product of modern workplace theories that are adopted worldwide. In that vein, I had to laugh yesterday when my husband sent me an email with information about a new course offered by the university here to employees who are new to Norway and who are struggling to understand their workplaces. The course will describe what it means to work in Norway with Norwegians, and will teach attendees about ‘both the formal code of conduct and the unwritten rules of working in Norway. The Norwegian workplace culture has important elements that are not found in most other western countries, and this may cause misunderstandings and frustration’ (direct citation from the course offering). You could have taken the words right out of my mouth. I could have used this kind of course twenty-five years ago. But since there were few to no foreigners in my workplace at that time, this type of course would never have seen the light of day. I struggled along on my own, with explanations for certain aspects of Norwegian workplace culture from my husband and some caring colleagues who have remained good friends. Along the way I developed a thick skin and a sense of humor, as well as the ability to let go of irritations. Had I not, I would have become frustrated and angry and stayed that way; American and Norwegian workplace cultures are that different. It is no accident that many of the new (young) foreign employees that start working in my workplace find their way to my office after a few months. Many of them knock on my door to ask me about some procedure that they’ve heard I know a lot about, but what they really want is to chat and to release some of their frustrations about what they experience here. We talk and sometimes I offer advice, but mostly I listen. Because I’ve been there, and I survived. My office mate (a non-Norwegian) calls me his role model. I understand what he means.

Back to my blog. I’ve decided that in some future posts, I will be sharing some of the short stories that I’ve been working on, with you. It will be interesting to find out what you think and feel about them. It may be a new road for the blog, and I’ll be interested to see where it takes me.

Extroversion, introversion, and ambiversion

Apparently, it is now acceptable and even cool to be an introvert in the workplace, after many years of hearing about how important it was to be an extrovert in the workplace. Saturday’s NY Times ran an article about exactly this-- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/fashion/susan-cain-instigating-a-quiet-revolution-of-introverts.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur. I guess it’s a good thing if introverts are finally being appreciated in the workplace. But I have to wonder why we cannot all just ‘live and let live’, generally in society and in the workplace specifically. I wrote a comment in the article’s Comments section; to wit—“It would be great if we were all allowed to be who we are--introvert, extrovert or somewhere in-between--and to contribute accordingly in the workplace. Why must everything become a trend? Extrovert last year, introvert this year. What's cool for next year? Why can't we accept that people are different? We cannot all be the same--God forbid. What a boring world that would be”.

I cannot understand why workplaces are so fickle and so insecure. Some people do not want to be social all the time, or spend all their time in meetings; they simply want some alone time to do the best job they can with the talents they are given. Do employers actually think that if all employees were pure extroverts, or pure introverts, that workplaces would be better places? These trends are the new flavors of the month, and I’m betting that most employees are sick of them. Employees have had extroversion pushed down their throats during the past decade, with no consideration for whether that particular personality trait was even helpful or good for them. I can attest to that; scientists have been pushed hard to sell themselves and their research, in ways that seem so foreign to the profession. It’s as though we were supposed to be salespeople selling a product. Frankly speaking, I’m not sure you can just switch from one to the other at whim if you are a true introvert or true extrovert. I happen to be one of those people who does not believe we can just toss off our old coat and put on a new one at the behest of our employers. One does not go from being an introvert today to being an extrovert tomorrow; it wouldn’t matter to me how many motivational, marketing or sales courses one attended. To some extent, we are the products of our genes, and to some extent, our environment can modify their expression. I’m not saying we can’t modify our behavior or personality traits, but I’m willing to bet that most people understand whether they are more introverted or extroverted from a young age, and choose their professions accordingly. I’d bet also that sales and marketing professions attract more extroverts, while research and laboratory professions attract more introverts. I’d need to see the statistics on this though, before I could come to a reasoned conclusion.

The workplace needs introverts (those people who are energized by being alone and whose energy is drained by being with other people--see http://giftedkids.about.com/od/glossary/g/introvert.htm), extroverts (those people who are energized by being together with other people--see http://giftedkids.about.com/od/glossary/g/extrovert.htm), and all those who define themselves as in-between (those who have the qualities of both). I fall into the latter category, which certainly seems to include the majority of people. After some searching online to find out what these people are called, the word ambivert popped up--someone who exhibits qualities of both introversion and extroversion. I am an ambivert—I enjoy (and need) my quiet alone time as a scientist, but also the social interactions at work. I enjoy (and need) my quiet alone time at home, but also the social interactions with family and friends. When it comes to social interactions, I prefer to have the element of choice—to choose how, when and where I will be social. I cannot be around people or talk to them every second of every day; I have no desire to be ‘on’ all day, every day. I need to be alone at times in order to recharge my batteries; and sometimes I need to be with others in order to do the same. It seems to balance itself out rather nicely for the most part.

Even with these definitions though, we need to stop ‘labeling’ people in the workplace (and in society too), and let employees contribute how best they can. It makes no sense to force a true introvert into an extrovert’s role, or vice versa. You will only create fearful, stressed and unhappy employees. I think the time has come to appreciate employees for their uniqueness and unique ability to contribute in the ways that make them feel comfortable. I’m not saying employees shouldn’t be challenged, but those challenges should have more to do with the framework of their work projects (e.g. giving them more responsibility within the confines of the project) and less to do with their personality traits.  

Update October 2014: One Hundred Haikus for Modern Workplaces

October is drawing to a close, and November is soon upon us. I've been busy with different projects, among them finishing up a collection of haiku poems that is now available as a Kindle edition on Amazon. This collection is entitled One Hundred Haikus for Modern Workplaces. It's a short collection that deals with workplace behaviors, bureaucracy, leadership, politics and trends, each summed up in short poems called haikus, which are three-line poems consisting of seventeen syllables--first line five syllables, second line seven syllables, and third line five syllables. It was quite enjoyable to write them, and the strict format actually helped to make each idea more concrete and focused. This collection does not cost much, just a couple of dollars, and can be downloaded to a Kindle or an iPad. I hope you will take a moment to check it out. You can find it here:
http://tinyurl.com/lkm6po4. 

Thanks!

Here is the book cover: